Main > Everything Else

What's the deal with all the pit bulls?

<< < (9/11) > >>

ChadTower:

I can't believe this conversation is happening again.



RayB:
Chad!! Hi!


CCM:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2010/07/23/dnt.ca.pit.bull.attack.kron?hpt=T2

usedelectronics:
Any adult that would let a toddler out with 3 65pound dogs (of ANY breed) should be jailed.

The myths surrounding American Pit Bull Terriers are ridiculous.  Keep in mind, before the idiots (Typically Hispanic/African American thugs) started fighting these animals, they were extremely well respected and even used as the United states "Mascot" during wartime.

As a Pit Bull owner, I face the realization that society wants to put a bandage on the vicious dog issue by severely restricting or banning various breeds. We must come to our senses and realize that it is the irresponsible owner who is truly at fault. It has been proven by numerous studies that the Pit Bull is no more inheritably aggressive then any other breed. In August 2002, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld a decision that pit bulls were no more inherently dangerous than any other breed in WAF/Sheila Tack v. Huntsville, Alabama. On March 7, 2006 the Sixth District Court of Appeals in Ohio ruled that BLS (breed specific legislation) violated several constitutional rights of dog owners. The court also ruled that there is no evidence to prove that Pit Bulls are any more dangerous then other breeds, thus restrictions on Pit Bulls were found by the court to be " unreasonable and discriminatory."

In 2000, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), joined together to investigate whether or not breed specific legislation (banning individual breeds, such as pit bulls) is effective. Dr. Julie Gilchrist, of the CDC Injury Center in Atlanta, concluded that, " We learned breed specific legislation is not the way to tackle the issue of dog bites. Instead, we should look at the people with the dogs responsible for the bites."

Organizations against breed specific regulations include: American Veterinary Medical Association, The American Kennel Club, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, National Animal Control Association, and the Humane Society of the United States. According to a recent aggression test of 122 dog breeds by the American Temperament Testing Society, Pit Bulls achieved an above average passing rate of 83.9percent based on their temperament. Golden Retrievers received an 83.2 percent score, Beagles 78.2 percent, and Standard Schnauzers scored only 63.5 percent.

http://www.badrap.org/rescue/myths.html

It's the extremely biased media, and people that spread the "locking jaws" rumors (with NO actual research into the breed) that give this otherwise EXCELLENT animal a bad name.

It isn't "Exciting" or "Rating boosting" to report  on any of the maulings or Killings committed by the other breeds, hence the reason you hear so little about them.

Blame the deed, not the breed.

shmokes:

--- Quote from: usedelectronics on July 25, 2010, 12:56:37 am ---
In August 2002, the Alabama Supreme Court upheld a decision that pit bulls were no more inherently dangerous than any other breed in WAF/Sheila Tack v. Huntsville, Alabama.


--- End quote ---

I just looked up this case to see what the court said.  Here is the full text of their decision:

"AFFIRMED. NO OPINION."

Lol.  I don't know Alabama law, but appellate courts in general will not make decisions regarding questions of fact (such as whether Pit Bulls are inherently more dangerous).  They correct mistakes of law.  They typically correct facts only when they are clearly erroneous on their face or there was an abuse of discretion by the judge.  Otherwise the findings of fact by the trial court are simply taken as true, even if the appellate court suspects they are ---That which is odiferous and causeth plants to grow---.

The second case you mentioned was slightly more difficult to find since you didn't give us party names.  But the 6th district case in question is: Toledo v. Tellings.  Unfortunately (for you), that case was overruled the following year on appeal.  Here are some fun quotes from the Ohio Supreme Court version of Toledo v. Tellings:


--- Quote --- . . . legislatures have broad police power to regulate all dogs so as to protect the public against the nuisance posed by a vicious dog.
--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---Pit bulls posed a serious danger to safety of citizens, such that the state and city had a legitimate interest in protecting citizens from dangers posed by pit bulls and pit bull mixed breed dogs, as would support a finding that statutes and ordinance regulating pit bulls and defining them as vicious dogs were a legitimate exercise of state's and city's police power under the Ohio Constitution
--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---pit bulls that attacked were more likely to inflict severe damage than other breeds
--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---pit bulls had killed more Ohioans than any other breed
--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---city's police officers fired weapons at pit bulls more often than at people and other breeds of dogs combined.
--- End quote ---
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL [Emphasis mine]


--- Quote ---Statutes and city ordinance regulating ownership of pit bulls and defining pit bulls as dangerous animals were rationally related to a legitimate interest in protecting citizens from dangers posed by pit bulls and pit bull mixed breed dogs and, thus, did not violate substantive due process and equal protection rights of pit bull owners.
--- End quote ---

So . . . yeah.  Maybe you shouldn't push the legal angle too far.  What's this 83.9 percent temperament score?  That sounds promising.  Wait . . . The American Temperament Testing Society.  Who are they?  

Oh . . . ROTFLMAO



Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version